Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back, as
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his congressional opposition
into agreeing on a so-called "compromise" on HR 2640 -- a bill
which now goes to the President's desk.

The bill -- known as the Veterans Disarmament Act to its opponents --
is being praised by the National Rifle Association and the Brady
Campaign.

The Brady Bunch crowed "Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady
Background Check System." The NRA stated that last minute changes to
the McCarthy bill made a "good bill even better [and that] the end
product is a win for American gun owners."

But Gun Owners of America has issued public statements decrying this
legislation.

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes
you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of
disability," so long as a veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort
of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court).
Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist
himself.

Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn't have
to occur. The "lawful authority" doesn't have to be unbiased. The
veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney -- much less an
attorney financed by the government.

So what do the proponents have to say about this?

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for
prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.

More to the point, what minimal gains were granted by the "right
hand" are taken away by the "left." Section 105 provides a process
for some Americans diagnosed with so-called mental disabilities to
get their rights restored in the state where they live. But then, in
subsection (a)(2), the bill stipulates that such relief may occur
only if "the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous
to public safety and that the GRANTING OF THE RELIEF WOULD NOT BE
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST." (Emphasis added.)

Um, doesn't this language sound similar to those state codes (like
California's) that have "may issue" concealed carry laws -- where
citizens "technically" have the right to carry, but state law only
says that sheriffs MAY ISSUE them a permit to carry? When given such
leeway, those sheriffs usually don't grant the permits!

Prediction: liberal states -- the same states that took these
people's rights away -- will treat almost every person who has been
illegitimately denied as a danger to society and claim that granting
relief would be "contrary to the public interest."

Let's make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton
Presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans -- promoted by the Brady
Anti-Gun Campaign -- is illegal and morally reprehensible.

But section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal
actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily
barred from possessing firearms.

True, they can hire a lawyer and beg the agency that took their
rights away to voluntarily give them back. But the agency doesn't
have to do anything but sit on its hands. And, after 365 days of
inaction, guess what happens? The newly disarmed veteran can spend
thousands of additional dollars to sue. And, as the plaintiff, the
wrongly disarmed veteran has the burden of proof.

Language proposed by GOA would have automatically restored a
veteran's gun rights if the agency sat on its hands for a year.
Unfortunately, the GOA amendment was not included.

The Veterans Disarmament Act passed the Senate and the House
yesterday -- both times WITHOUT A RECORDED VOTE. That is, the bill
passed by Unanimous Consent, and was then transmitted to the White
House.

Long-time GOA activists will remember that a similar "compromise"
deal helped the original Brady Law get passed. In 1993, there were
only two or three senators on the floor of that chamber who used a
Unanimous Consent agreement (with no recorded vote) to send the Brady
bill to President Clinton -- at a time when most legislators had
already left town for their Thanksgiving Break.

Gun owners can go to http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9402.htm to
read about how this betrayal occurred 14 years ago.

With your help, Gun Owners of America has done a yeoman's job of
fighting gun control over the years, considering the limited
resources that we have. Together, we were able to buck the Brady
Campaign/NRA coalition in 1999 (after the Columbine massacre) and
were able to defeat the gun control that was proposed in the wake of
that shooting.

Yesterday, we were not so lucky. But we are not going to go away.
GOA wants to repeal the gun-free zones that disarm law-abiding
Americans and repeal the other gun restrictions that are on the
books. That is the answer to Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, the
House and Senate chose the path of imposing more gun control.

Are you being deliberately misleading, or are you really so stupid that you can not underastand what this bill actually says?

It prohibits those that have a significant psychiatric disability form purchasing a firearm.

Just what the hell is wrong with that? I don't want some person that is hallucinating owning a firearm near my house. And it is NOT just aimed at veterans, like you imply. It is aimed at anyone with a significant psychiatric disability.

Are you worried because YOU have such a disability?

I am a disbled veteran, service connected disabled for wounds sustained in Vietnam. I am not in any danger of losing my rights to own a firearm under this bill, nor is any other veteran.

But those people that have a history of psychiatric disorfers are prohibited from having firearms, They have the opportunity to prove that they are no longer affected by thst disorrder. I personally think this is a GOOD THING.

The Old Medic

01-30-2009, 02:32 PM

Are you being deliberately misleading, or are you really so stupid that you can not underastand what this bill actually says?

It prohibits those that have a significant psychiatric disability form purchasing a firearm.

Just what the hell is wrong with that? I don't want some person that is hallucinating owning a firearm near my house. And it is NOT just aimed at veterans, like you imply. It is aimed at anyone with a significant psychiatric disability.

Are you worried because YOU have such a disability?

I am a disabled veteran, service connected disabled for wounds sustained in Vietnam. I am not in any danger of losing my rights to own a firearm under this bill, nor is any other such veteran. I currently own three rifles, one shotgun and a pistol.

But those people that have a history of psychiatric disorders are prohibited from having firearms, They have the opportunity to prove that they are no longer affected by that disorder. I personally think this is a GOOD THING.

BlueAngel

01-30-2009, 10:09 PM

Are you being deliberately misleading, or are you really so stupid that you can not underastand what this bill actually says?

It prohibits those that have a significant psychiatric disability form purchasing a firearm.

Just what the hell is wrong with that? I don't want some person that is hallucinating owning a firearm near my house. And it is NOT just aimed at veterans, like you imply. It is aimed at anyone with a significant psychiatric disability.

Are you worried because YOU have such a disability?

I am a disabled veteran, service connected disabled for wounds sustained in Vietnam. I am not in any danger of losing my rights to own a firearm under this bill, nor is any other such veteran. I currently own three rifles, one shotgun and a pistol.

But those people that have a history of psychiatric disorders are prohibited from having firearms, They have the opportunity to prove that they are no longer affected by that disorder. I personally think this is a GOOD THING.

Excerpt from article:

ARGUMENT: The Veterans Disarmament Act creates new avenues for
prohibited persons to seek restoration of their gun rights.

ANSWER: What the bill does is to lock in -- statutorily -- huge
numbers of additional law-abiding Americans who will now be denied
the right to own a firearm.

And then it "graciously" allows these newly disarmed Americans to
spend tens of thousands of dollars for a long-shot chance to regain
the gun rights this very bill takes away from them.